Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 24 October 2014, 1:49:48 AM *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Reply  |  Print  
Author Topic: How low can the AUD/SGD go?  (Read 9502 times)
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2351



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: 01 November 2008, 12:54:10 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

I'm thinking you missed the following then Kubes:

Humans to blame for melting Antarctica
Font Size:DecreaseIncreasePrint Page:Print
October 31, 2008

ANTARCTICA, which seemed to have largely escaped the global warming hotting up the rest of the planet, is melting too.

New research, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, also provides the firmest proof to date that climate change at both poles is not the result of natural fluctuations.

“Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions,” said Alexey Karpechko, a professor at the University of East Anglia and a co-author of the study.

Earlier investigations left no doubt that Earth's northern extremity has warmed at nearly twice the global average over the last century, causing a dramatic shrinking of sea ice and disrupting the region's ecosystems.

“However in Antarctica, such detection was so far precluded by insufficient data,” said Karpechko.

The new study goes a long way towards filling that gap, and factoring out the causes.

Using new data on land surface temperatures and state-of-the-art computer models to simulate different climate scenarios, a team of scientists led by East Anglia's Nathan Gillet were able to tease apart the internal and external drivers of observed changes at both poles.

Rather than covering the entire Arctic and Antarctic regions, as previous studies have done, they focused only on the grid points where precise measurements have been taken.

This made their climate models more accurate, and showed that observed changes in temperatures over the 20th century could only have occurred if the impact of industrial greenhouse gas emissions, and upper atmosphere ozone depletion, are taken into account.

“Their work demonstrates convincingly what previous studies have suggested - that humans have indeed contributed to warming in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions,” said Andrew Monaghan of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research and David Bromwich, a researcher at Ohio State University, in a comment, also published in Nature Geoscience.

Knowing the cause “of polar climate variability is critical for understanding how the ice sheets will evolve in the 21st century,” they said.

AFP


BM2 - what a hilarious joke this "research" is.  It just another computer model !!!!  Whoopee.  Why haven't the computer models modeled the decline in temperatures globally, and in the antarctic.  I have shared a few above, in case you have not noticed.  Happy to fill this thread with hundreds more examples.  Yes?

Come on BM2.  You are smart enough to know that computer models are not science.  They are certainly not proof.   This is just another couple of academics hoping for another tax-payer funded research grant.
« Last Edit: 01 November 2008, 13:00:39 PM by Kubes.SG » Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
ExpatSingapore Message Board
« Reply #15 on: 01 November 2008, 12:54:10 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote



 Logged
chaos theory
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 376


Citizen of the Cosmos


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: 01 November 2008, 13:09:35 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

ok Kubes, you are an economic rationalist. If I accept that your data suggests 99% sure that there is no global warming.

You have to at least accept that maybe there is at least 1% chance that global warming will destroy life on earth.

So how much are you prepared to pay each year as insurance against this?

For example if you currently have a car worth $50000 today you are happy to 1% insurance on this asset which will be worth $0 in 5 years time.

The cost of reducing carbon emmission is less about half of what you pay for car insurance and if the scientist are right it means the planet will sustain life for another 2-3 billion years.

Talk me through your arguement for not reducing carbon emmissions.
Logged

Treat every resource as if it is your last. Then share it.
BoardAdmin2
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 188


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: 01 November 2008, 13:22:08 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

Ah Kubes, i knew you would latch onto that single sentence - the computer model.  Take it out, and re-read.  They have hard data from Antarctica showing a rising in temperature.  Likewise measurements have been seen elsewhere across the globe.  It's funny how years ago, the 'greenhouse effect' sceptics used to cry 'it's just one example, just one location, show us the long-term trend!'  now it has reversed as the long-term trend (computer modelling or no) is clear: upward in temperature.  So NOW the chorus from the sceptics in 'look at all these examples of cold weather!" it's really very amusing when looked at from the historical perspective of the debate. 

So getting back to the science, there is data that show the planet is warming in specific locations.  This is long-term data.  There is also evidence that nitrogen trifluoride levels are increasing.  What is causing that? There is also evidence that solar output is decreasing, and has been for 50 years, yet the climate change trend line is also clear, why is that? why are CO2 levels increasing? what about methane? these are all questions that have answers.  Seek the out and look beyond any distaste for computer modelling. 

The facts are we know that certain gases trap heat more than others.  Which ones are increasing as a proportion of the atmosphere and why is this so? really, anyone who believes that burning tons of oil based fuels each year doesn't have an impact is... well... a creationist??? it's about as rational as that.

We also know that the long-term average for temperatures at multiple locations in different parts of the world, both urban, rural, remote and at different altitudes, longitudes and latitudes are all increasing (when viewed from a trend line).  Why is that? could it possibly have any correlation to certain gasses that are becoming more prominent in the atmosphere?

We (hypothesise) that solar output has fluctuated over time.  I say fluctuated as we haven't had the ability to accurately measure this for more than about 60 years or so, a short time compared to tempreture and gases composition levels in the athmosphere, and most of the solar life-cycle is based upon, wait for it, computer models based on observed information about different stars in different places in our galaxy.  Wow! a computer model being used in another strand of science, fancy that! So, we have observed that solar output has been dropping and is now at it's lowest point in 50 years.

So let's put it all together, ready?

1. If the Sun is the primary influence of climate, why when it's output has dropped slightly over the last 50 years has this resulted in an increase in global temperature averages?
2. If the atmosphere and it's composition is a factor in climate, how has it changed and why have those changes occurred?
3. Where does human activity impact on 1 and 2? how have we influenced solar activity? how have we influenced atmospheric composition?

When you take a step back, INMO, it's pretty clear there are MANY factors at play in the current situation, but simply trying to say that human's aren't the cause of increases in greenhouse gases is simply an untenable scientific position.  Saying computer models are wrong isn't.  We are altering the atmosphere's composition.  Solar output is dropping.  Temperature is increasing.  It's doesn't take a rocket (or climate) scientist to figure out something is up, and it's probably related to humans.

Take it from another angle: if the majority of scientists are wrong, and we spend all these $$$ to fix the problem, what have we achieved? something rather important actually, we will have direct proof (presuming we return the atmosphere to something like it was in the early 20th century) that the current train of thought is wrong.  The alternative is to let it run it's course, and if the predications are correct, to say 'hey they were right after all'

That is where risk analysis comes in, and i'm on the side of caution for my children and grandchildren's sake.

Speaking of 'spot data' here is something i've posted before:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/act/summary.shtml
Logged
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2351



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: 01 November 2008, 13:26:10 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

Kubes, you say that there is no scientific evidence that man is responsible for producing the gasses that trap additional heat, right? or that the observed data can be explained by fluctuations in the sun, right?   OK, so let me ask you then the following two questions:

1. What or who then is responsible for the rapid rise in nitrogen trifluoride levels in the atmosphere? What will be the impact of a rise in nitrogen trifluoride levels if all other variables related to climate remain constant?

2. Why is solar wind strength at it's lowest measured level in 50 years, and why is the heliopause around the solar system shrinking if solar output has increased to cause climate change?


BM2:   Firstly you have to believe these gases at higher or lower levels have direct impact on the temperature due to the greenhouse gas theory.  The fact is that there is no proof that this is the case, and scientists are increasingly struggling to make any connections.  See below.  

So to answer your question, who cares the first.

To the second, I don't know.  But let me read up on it.



MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data
By Rick C. Hodgin  
Thursday, October 30, 2008 09:55

Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.


Methane - powerful greenhouse gas


The two lead authors of a paper published in this week's Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere.

Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun's light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth's atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.


More study


Prinn has said, "The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks. The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus [an increase] in the rate of removal. Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each [is responsible for the overall increase]."

The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over. While the collected data from that time period reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, observing atmospheric trends now is like observing the healthy horse running through the paddock a year after it overcame some mystery illness. Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? Looking back over 2007 data as it was captured may prove as ineffective if the data does not support the high resolution details such a study requires.

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.


Project funding

Rigby and Prinn carried out this study with help from researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Methane gas measurements came from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE), which is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network.
Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
BoardAdmin2
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 188


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: 01 November 2008, 13:26:30 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

Here it is in case it's not clear:

Year 2007

Canberra's fourth consecutive hottest year on record

Summary
Warmest year on record for annual average mean temperatures
Warmest year on record for annual average minimum temperatures
Equal second warmest year on record for annual average maximum temperatures
Fourth consecutive year of record breaking annual mean temperatures
Eleventh consecutive year of above average annual maximum, minimum and mean temperatures
Stormiest year in 37 years
Below average rainfall
Logged
BoardAdmin2
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 188


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: 01 November 2008, 13:31:33 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

If you did around about the methane. the source has actually already been identified, and whilst not a direct product from man, is directly a result of changing temperatures.  Did around for stuff on a certain lake in the former USSR that is now bubbling methane, and methane release in the Arctic.  Same facts as the article you posted, but with the complete picture. As for the 'greenhouse effect isn't proven' sorry, hogwash.  That was done in the 60's through to 80's without computer modelling, indeed the name 'greenhouse' effect is derived from how some of the early experiments were conducted.  Someone saying 'the greenhouse theory that some gases trap more heat than others is just a theory that hasn't been proven' is like me saying that Newtonian and physics is just a theory that has no basis in fact, and that the Bernoulli principle has no application for the design of ships and hydrodynamics.   

Kubes, you say that there is no scientific evidence that man is responsible for producing the gasses that trap additional heat, right? or that the observed data can be explained by fluctuations in the sun, right?   OK, so let me ask you then the following two questions:

1. What or who then is responsible for the rapid rise in nitrogen trifluoride levels in the atmosphere? What will be the impact of a rise in nitrogen trifluoride levels if all other variables related to climate remain constant?

2. Why is solar wind strength at it's lowest measured level in 50 years, and why is the heliopause around the solar system shrinking if solar output has increased to cause climate change?


BM2:   Firstly you have to believe these gases at higher or lower levels have direct impact on the temperature due to the greenhouse gas theory.  The fact is that there is no proof that this is the case, and scientists are increasingly struggling to make any connections.  See below.  

So to answer your question, who cares the first.

To the second, I don't know.  But let me read up on it.



MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data
By Rick C. Hodgin  
Thursday, October 30, 2008 09:55

Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.


Methane - powerful greenhouse gas


The two lead authors of a paper published in this week's Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere.

Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun's light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth's atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.


More study


Prinn has said, "The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks. The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus [an increase] in the rate of removal. Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each [is responsible for the overall increase]."

The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over. While the collected data from that time period reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, observing atmospheric trends now is like observing the healthy horse running through the paddock a year after it overcame some mystery illness. Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? Looking back over 2007 data as it was captured may prove as ineffective if the data does not support the high resolution details such a study requires.

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.


Project funding

Rigby and Prinn carried out this study with help from researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Methane gas measurements came from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE), which is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network.

Logged
chaos theory
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 376


Citizen of the Cosmos


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: 01 November 2008, 13:34:57 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

OMG I feel like Jan Brady.

Kubes and BM2 can you please stall the validy of the data argument and Kubes please respond to the economic rationale of why if there is just 1% chance of him crashing his car he is happy to insure his car but given there is more than a 1% chance of of global warming he does not want to take out similar insurance at less than half the cost of car insurance?
Logged

Treat every resource as if it is your last. Then share it.
BoardAdmin2
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 188


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: 01 November 2008, 13:47:29 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

Hmm... i'm still interested to understand why nitrogen trifluoride isn't considered an issue... but yes, the risk analysis is also very valid!

OMG I feel like Jan Brady.

Kubes and BM2 can you please stall the validy of the data argument and Kubes please respond to the economic rationale of why if there is just 1% chance of him crashing his car he is happy to insure his car but given there is more than a 1% chance of of global warming he does not want to take out similar insurance at less than half the cost of car insurance?
Logged
chaos theory
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 376


Citizen of the Cosmos


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: 01 November 2008, 13:50:07 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

Quote
i'm still interested to understand why nitrogen trifluoride isn't considered an issue

Dude..you so need to get out more. As we all probably do.
« Last Edit: 01 November 2008, 13:53:58 PM by chaos theory » Logged

Treat every resource as if it is your last. Then share it.
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2351



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: 01 November 2008, 13:55:23 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

Hmm... i'm still interested to understand why nitrogen trifluoride isn't considered an issue... but yes, the risk analysis is also very valid!

OMG I feel like Jan Brady.

Kubes and BM2 can you please stall the validy of the data argument and Kubes please respond to the economic rationale of why if there is just 1% chance of him crashing his car he is happy to insure his car but given there is more than a 1% chance of of global warming he does not want to take out similar insurance at less than half the cost of car insurance?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to CO2, Methane and Nitrogen Trifluoride as the key causes of global warming.  So better that you present your case, and I will defend against it.  So please start....

Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
chaos theory
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 376


Citizen of the Cosmos


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: 01 November 2008, 14:05:03 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

My case is that if there is even a less than 1% chance of these gases being responsible for global warming ( and the worlds scientific community would argue a much higher %) then its worth at least making the same investment as we would to insure the future of our house and our car.

Indeed the cost of insuring the planet against these gases by reducing the per household carbon emmission is less than $1 a day, which is half what you spend on car and house insurance.

So forget about whether the data is correct, please explain your economic rationale for insuring short term assets like cars and houses but a resistance to insuring the planet viability long term?
« Last Edit: 01 November 2008, 14:06:37 PM by chaos theory » Logged

Treat every resource as if it is your last. Then share it.
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2351



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: 01 November 2008, 14:38:23 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

ok Kubes, you are an economic rationalist. If I accept that your data suggests 99% sure that there is no global warming.

You have to at least accept that maybe there is at least 1% chance that global warming will destroy life on earth.

So how much are you prepared to pay each year as insurance against this?

For example if you currently have a car worth $50000 today you are happy to 1% insurance on this asset which will be worth $0 in 5 years time.

The cost of reducing carbon emmission is less about half of what you pay for car insurance and if the scientist are right it means the planet will sustain life for another 2-3 billion years.

Talk me through your arguement for not reducing carbon emmissions.

CT:  No rational person would accept the economic and lifestyle cost of stopping global warming.  (despite the fact it is impossible)  It is not like insurance.  Lets put some more realistic numbers into your example, and some realistic outcomes.

1)   the chance of there being a cataclysmic warming that wipes out life on earth is virtually zero - it has never happened before and it is inconceivable based on what we know today.  Cooling is the bigger more likely issue.  So forget this 1% risk it is more like 0.00001% risk.  If fact we should worry more about a meteorite impact. 

2) to spend $70 trillion over the next 40 years to try to fix a problem that we have zero influence over is irrational, and just plain stupid.  Why don't we try to stop earthquakes.  Or slow the rotation of the earth for a longer day.  Or make rain clouds appear or disappear depending on what we need.  It is all nonsense.

3) Temperate change on earth is a natural cycle.  The long-term average temperature on earth is actually substantially colder than today (as much as 15C cooler).  There hottest temperatures have been at least 5-8c higher than today. The lifeforms that we see today on earth have survived multiple cooling and warming periods even in the very short period of the the last 100,000.

4) There is absolutely no data, proof, evidence of science that proves that Co2 or any other gases cause global warming.  Instead the data shows, and real scientists accept that Co2 rises 800-1000 years AFTER global temperatures rise.  The data shows, that the oceans are a massive Co2 (and heat) sink and is by far the largest source of Co2,  The oceans take a few hundred years to react to warmer surface temperatures.  The scientific data shows that Co2 has been significantly higher and lower in the past (measured in millions years).

5) Co2 has been rising for over 200 years.  Well before any real industrialization.  The glaciers have been shrinking for the same period, with some slower periods during that time.  As long ago as 2003  two Harvard researchers, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, showed that the Medieval Warm Period (about 1100 to 1400) and Little Ice Age (about 1550 to 1800) were global in their influence that that late twentieth century climate warming is not particularly unusual in rate or magnitude.  The Hockey Stick graph that Gore used dramatically in his movie and which was been the basis of IPCC claims and direction is proven to be 100% fraudulent.  Like the IPCC, Gore and his movie, and the large number of AGW alarmists who are in it for the money, or ideological reasons.  There is not substance or rationality to their positions.

6) Global warming has definitely been happening, no question about that. But it has been happening for the last 200+ years, as the earth warmed after the Little Ice Age.  This is just a natural cycle that has happened forever.  Man and Co2 has virtually zero influence on this change.

Cool The sad true is that vast majority of people are stupid, have no understanding of science or physics but are very responsive to fear.  Politicians have leveraged these traits forever, whether it is to start wars, increase taxes, change laws or increase controls/power.  If presumably smart people like CT and BM2 can't understand the basic science behind climate change and are sucked into the lies, misinformation, hype, hysteria and panic, then that is truly scary.

Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
chaos theory
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 376


Citizen of the Cosmos


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: 01 November 2008, 15:00:35 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

Kubes.Great stats. Great argument. If it makes you feel better, you win.

Personally. I am happy to spend $5 a day buying a beer and knocking it back and reflecting on life etc. It makes me feel good.

In the same way, I am happy to spend a few dollars a day to reduce the amount of carbon that is being pumped into the world because you dont have to be a rocket scientist to know that the output of our economy has an adverse effect on the environment. Even if collectively it adds up to $70 trillion over 40 years. Its really less than beer money. Get it in perspective.

The reason you wont reply to the economic rationale of spending a few dollars a day to help the environment but you will spend many times that to insure your private assets is becauase you are an economic conservative which is your right in the democracy we live in and I respect that. Simply, you feel only responsiblity for your individual actions not those of the collective society.

I think these days are numbered thankfully.

Logged

Treat every resource as if it is your last. Then share it.
chaos theory
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 376


Citizen of the Cosmos


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: 01 November 2008, 15:14:43 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

Quote
:  No rational person would accept the economic and lifestyle cost of stopping global warming.  (despite the fact it is impossible)  It is not like insurance.  Lets put some more realistic numbers into your example, and some realistic outcomes.

This is not true. The Oz Govt modeling has just costed a 20% CE reduction at $4 per week for oil and $2 per week for gas. Per household.

So a thats  less than a $1 a day per household. I think its great insurance. If the world reduces carbon emmission by 40% over the next 20 years it will have bugger all effect on the economy and probably create a whole new industry.

I cant see any down side. If we dont do it the risk is huge if you are wrong. I think its a no brainer.
« Last Edit: 01 November 2008, 15:16:23 PM by chaos theory » Logged

Treat every resource as if it is your last. Then share it.
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2351



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: 01 November 2008, 15:18:48 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote

My case is that if there is even a less than 1% chance of these gases being responsible for global warming ( and the worlds scientific community would argue a much higher %) then its worth at least making the same investment as we would to insure the future of our house and our car.

Indeed the cost of insuring the planet against these gases by reducing the per household carbon emmission is less than $1 a day, which is half what you spend on car and house insurance.

So forget about whether the data is correct, please explain your economic rationale for insuring short term assets like cars and houses but a resistance to insuring the planet viability long term?


Quote
Posted by: chaos theory

Kubes.Great stats. Great argument. If it makes you feel better, you win.

Personally. I am happy to spend $5 a day buying a beer and knocking it back and reflecting on life etc. It makes me feel good.

In the same way, I am happy to spend a few dollars a day to reduce the amount of carbon that is being pumped into the world because you dont have to be a rocket scientist to know that the output of our economy has an adverse effect on the environment. Even if collectively it adds up to $70 trillion over 40 years. Its really less than beer money. Get it in perspective.

The reason you wont reply to the economic rationale of spending a few dollars a day to help the environment but you will spend many times that to insure your private assets is becauase you are an economic conservative which is your right in the democracy we live in and I respect that. Simply, you feel only responsiblity for your individual actions not those of the collective society.

I think these days are numbered thankfully.




Lets get this straight.  The chance of any changes to the level of carbon output by mankind overall or especially by Australians individually will have absolutely zero influence global warming or cooling.  To say that there is a 1% chance of global warming ending the world is just ridiculous.  Anyone who truly believes that is either foolish or dishonest.

The positive of reducing carbon-foot prints is only the feel-good effect, and reducing guilt.

The cost of the AU ETS recos from Gaunalt is estimated to be 2%-3% of the AU GDP every year - this is not a 1 time hit, it never stops.  That is far more than half the growth rate that developed countries like Australia need to sustain a decent quality of life.  It is lies like the one that you shared that this is a $1 or $5 per day insurance.

So to look at the numbers, would it be rational for someone to have pay an annual 2.5% insurance cost, for a risk that has less than 0.000001% of happening.  Of course not.

Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Reply  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines